How man can prove God exists.

@Imsleepy

There are three ways man comes to know the existence of God:

1. By man's intelligence and his rational faculty and his reasoning process.
2. By reading the Bible for Christians and Orthodox Jews, and the Koran for Muslims.
3. By meditation.


I know God exists by the No. 1 way.

Very briefly:
a. Man is a transient entity i.e. he is here today and then after some years of life like as much as 90 years plus, he dies.
b. The transient existence of man inevitably implicates the existence of God as the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.
c. So, we are the evidence for the existence of God.
d. Therefore God exists.


Hi Iamspeepy, You are denying the existence of the biblical God.

Here is my definition of God grounded on man's intelligence and his rational faculty and his reasoning process:
"God is the permanent self-existent container of all things creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not God Himself."

I didn't come to that definition of God by searching the bible.

Suppose you employ your intelligence and rational faculty and reasoning process: to deny that God as defined above, did not put you into existence, but something else, like what?

@yrger [quote]permanent self-existent creator[/quote]

You base that claim on what..?

@newjaninev2

Hi Newj, this is my new definition of god:
"God is the permanent self-existent container of all things, and creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not god himself."

You ask me on what basis I claim god is permanent self-existent.

On the basis that we humans and also everything did not create ourselves, and we are transient things, that means we have a beginning and an ending.

Ultimately transient things implicate the existence of a being that is permanent self-existent, that imparts i.e. creates all transient things. That is god.

Therefore god exists.

If you deny god exists, then what is your ultimate explanation for our transient existence?

@yrger How is this for a definition?

A scientific God model, a theory of God. A supreme being is hypothesized to exist having the following attributes:

1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe.

2. God is the architect of the structure of the universe and the author of the laws of nature.

3. God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.

4. God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity, where human beings are special in relation to other life-forms.

5. God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.

6. God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.

7. God has revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.

8. God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.

Note, however, that the traditional attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence—The Three 'O' characteristics usually associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God—have been omitted. Such a god can’t exist.

@BlueSkyKing

Hi Blue, that's a terribly long billing for god to achieve.

Could you please reduce them to say four items only, which are the most discrediting to god?

And also to play fair with god, four items which are to the credit of god?

@Imsleepy Because you are applying natural standards to supernatural matters.

@yrger I don’t deny that gods exist. There’s no need.

1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we’d all be theists)
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountaintop somewhere)
3. in any event, there’s [i]no compelling necessity[/i] to even postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

@yrger Reduce the number of attributes and make it easy? The jealous god of the Old Testament can’t even deal with iron chariots.

@newjaninev2
Hi Newj.

Here is how you and I know that god exists:
1. You and I agree on the concept of god.
2. Then you and I set forth to look for the reality of god.
3. By asking ourselves what ultimately put you and me into existence status from previously non-status existence.

That is my procedure, please accept it, or you tell me what is your procedure to prove god exists.

@BlueSkyKing How about; "God is everything that is"?

@yrger What??

1. [b]No[/b]... I have no ‘concept’ of gods because there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate the things
2. [b]No[/b]... I am not looking for the ‘reality of gods because there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate the things
3. [b]No[/b]... that wouldn’t explain the existence of anything, and certainly wouldn’t explain the existence of what you’re calling ‘gods’

You’re just making a series of unsupported claims... convenient fictions, even though there’s no compelling necessity for them

@newjaninev2 [quote]Hi Newj, you say:

"I don’t deny that gods exist. There’s no need.

1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we’d all be theists)
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountaintop somewhere)
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)."[/quote]

How to come to the existence of god:
1. We exist. True.
2. We did not bring ourselves into existence. True.
3. So something else brought us into existence. True.
4. We humans are intelligent, are logical, are curious, are investigative. True.
5. We from investigation of existence conclude that there are ultimately two kinds of existence. True.
6. The two kinds of existence are ultimately (a) permanent existence, (b) transient existence. True.
7. Transient existence like us humans depends on permanent existence to come to existence. True.
8. Permanent existence is god. True.
9. Therefore god exists. True.
10. Otherwise we have no ultimate explanation for our existence. True.

This is the definition of god:
"God is the permanent self-existent container of all things, and the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not God Himself." True.

@yrger Are any of my eight points I made earlier false?

The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument:

1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God [b]may[/b] exist.
5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties [b]does not[/b] exist.

[quote]I became an atheist when I read the Bible and applied scientific knowledge to the claims it makes. It’s easily refuted. -Ims[/quote]

God is also known outside the bible. -Yrger

-------------------

Hi all atheists.

I am Yrger, and I am addressing this post to all atheists:


"There are three ways man comes to know the existence of god:

1. By man's intelligence and his rational faculty and his reasoning process.
2. By reading the Bible for Christians and Orthodox Jews, and the Koran for Muslims.
3. By meditation.


I know god exists by the No. 1 way.

Very briefly:
a. Man is a transient entity i.e. he is here today and then after some years of life like as much as 90 years plus, he dies.
b. The transient existence of man inevitably implicates the existence of god as the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.
c. So, we are the evidence for the existence of god.
d. Therefore god exists.


You atheists are denying the existence of the biblical god.

Here is my definition of god grounded on man's intelligence and his rational faculty and his reasoning process:
God is the permanent self-existent container of all things, and the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not god Himself.

I didn't come to that definition of god by searching the bible.

Suppose you take a break from the bible, and employ your intelligence and rational faculty and reasoning process: to examine god as defined above (reproduced below):
"God is the permanent self-existent container of all things, and the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not god Himself."

Then you will update and upgrade your concept of god.

@yrger
I have a question. In your senecio, is god’s continued existence a factor?
Once the process is started, does god need to oversee it ?

@yrger “Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
― George Carlin

[quote]Hi Ims, you say:
"I became an atheist when I read the Bible and applied scientific knowledge to the claims it makes. It’s easily refuted."[/quote]

Good for you, you can continue with your angry and disgruntled life.

What about my response gave you that impression? @yrger

@newjaninev2
1) the fact the universe exist, is proof only that it is here. The background radiation, and the expanding suggests the Big Bang . But do not explain what preceded it.
2) whatever set off the Big Bang , only needed to do so once. Continued existence is not necessary to the equation, nor is intent .
3) even if an entity were responsible for creation. There is no reason for it to be aware or interested in any human affairs. Or aware of our existence. For that matter. The universe is very big, Earth is very small.
4) personal opinion is worthless. If god could exist, it is not necessarily by any means or reasons within human understanding.

In short, you don’t know Jack shit. One way or the other.

@yrger [quote](a) permanent existence, (b) transient existence.[/quote]

How do you arrive at that?

Remove spacetime and the concepts of transient and permanent disappear

@newjaninev2 My feelings exactly.